I find it very helpful to step back and recognize that there are fundamental hermeneutical differences underlying the exegetical disagreements. I am also fully aware of the fact that the sort of reading I am proposing diverges significantly from traditional readings of New Testament eschatology. I would stress that my intention is not at all to diminish the authority of scripture or even to demythologize it against its will but simply to understand it better. This is not something I do on my own. I read as part of a community, and the larger and more diverse that community, the better.

There are some odd ironies in your second paragraph - at least to my way of looking at things. I would also claim to hold to a ‘realistic eschatology’ - but realistic in the sense that I seek to understand how eschatological texts emerge from, refer to and describe the real historical experiences of the believing community. I would argue for a ‘literal’ interpretation of the texts in the sense of ‘according to the literature’. I also think that Daniel has in mind a literal resurrection. And yet we still arrive at rather different conclusions!

I certainly accept that Jesus applies the imagery of Daniel to the desecration of the temple by the Romans, but I would argue that for Paul the man of lawlessness is a figure very much like Nero (or perhaps the emperor in a generic sense) and that this aspect forms part of the same basic vision. I think there are good grounds for thinking that Revelation was written at the time of the Jewish War, but even without that assumption I think it is entirely realistic (and strictly biblical) to suggest that the defeat of the man of lawlessness or the beast is the defeat of Roman imperial hostility towards the people of God. That, in fact, is by no means an exceptional interpretation. I see nothing in your argument that requires an end-of-the-world eschatology.

I agree that supernatural events accompanied the exodus, but New Testament apocalyptic language is for the most part drawn from prophetic descriptions of judgment on Israel (especially the Babylonian invasion and exile) and on Israel’s enemies which do not involve supernatural occurences. The cosmic language appears to denote not merely military defeat but substantial geo-political realignment, perhaps reflecting some sort of belief in heavenly counterparts to earthly powers.

The intertestmental, Essenic and rabbinic texts would have to be looked at closely. I think my response would be, though, that there is very little evidence that New Testament eschatology was influenced by these streams of thought. Almost everything has its source one way or another in the Old Testament. I would go as far as to suggest that it is precisely a hallmark of biblical eschatology that it is very realistic about historical experience.

How the church fathers read the New Testament is a very good question. Again, this is obviously not something that is ever going to have a very strong impact on exegesis of the New Testament. But I would certainly want to consider the possibility that the millennium was important to them for the same reason that it was important to the first generation of believers - it was the period that would follow the overthrow of their enemies, the ending of persecution, and the vindication of those who remained true to their Lord during this period.

It’s fascinating how we appear to have crossed over by the time we get to your reading of Revelation 21. That deserves more thought at some point. For now, many thanks for a very constructive discussion.